Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Strategic Incompetence of Democrats

Posts

Sometimes I'm actually a little bit glad my ancestors came to the new world in the early 1700s because I don't have to worry about whether or not me and mine somehow benefited from racism and intolerance. Yep. That was my people. I'm really very sorry about it; please let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve the quality of your schools.

But I can totally see how if you're a first generation American whose parents emigrated here from the Russia in the 1980s, you'd be a little perplexed about why you're supposed to have a share of the white man's burden.

Yeah yeah, I've never oppressed anyone, that happened in the past, but don't mind me while I enjoy advantages conferred upon me by that past oppression.

What an idiotic argument.

Frankly, the fact that asshats in the past have engaged in discrimination is not my fault nor should it be my problem. KKK members have burned down black peoples' houses, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take my deck furniture as compensation.

If there is still discrimination and racism in society, we should take steps to eliminate it. But that's hard to do, so we've decided to enact policies that try to counter past discrimination with a new brand of discrimination. Figuring out how to fix broken inner city schools is perplexing, so we try and use affirmative action to give people who may not be the most qualified for a job a leg up in order to gloss over this past failure. Never mind that you're creating a new victim in that process.

I suppose if we reach a point where we're all subject to the same level of discrimination based on skin color, then we've achieved the goal of equality?

And that cartoon is shallow and stupid. The white dude in that cartoon did directly opress that black guy. There are laws to redress that. But affirmative action seeks to punish some random white dude for the actions that his ancestors may or may not have taken against some random black people in the past.

You don't seem to understand. You are actively and directly benefiting from racism right now. It might not be your racism, and you might not even like it, but you are.

No, I'm really not. I don't subscribe to the notion that I am in any way responsible for the past actions of other people. My ancestors could have been the worst people ever, but unless I'm holding on to some painting they stole from your family or whatever, I don't have any responsibility to you.

The country where I was born was pretty heavily exploited by the Ottoman Empire for 400 plus years. But no one in Istanbul owes me a thing for that.

No, I really haven't. I challenge you to come up with a concrete example of how I have personally been discriminated for or been the recipient of advantages based on my race.

Do you have a job? Do you interact with people in social contexts? Have you received a promotion? Do you have inherited wealth

If yes, then you have been a recipient of discrimination based advantages.

What? The fact that I got an education that allowed me to get a job, learned basic social skills from my parents, have received promotions based on my work and stand to inherit some modest amounts is indicative of the benefits of racism how, exactlly?

No, I really haven't. I challenge you to come up with a concrete example of how I have personally been discriminated for or been the recipient of advantages based on my race.

Do you have a job? Do you interact with people in social contexts? Have you received a promotion? Do you have inherited wealth

If yes, then you have been a recipient of discrimination based advantages.

What? The fact that I got an education that allowed me to get a job, learned basic social skills from my parents, have received promotions based on my work and stand to inherit some modest amounts is indicative of the benefits of racism how, exactlly?

Because many people as a result of racism don't have that? I'm not sure whats hard to understand about this.

You have an advantage over others in our society based entirely upon having white skin.

What? The fact that I got an education that allowed me to get a job, learned basic social skills from my parents, have received promotions based on my work and stand to inherit some modest amounts is indicative of the benefits of racism how, exactlly?

Because the social contexts from which you have received those benefits are inseparable with discrimination which has the effect to elevate white people above others.

Was your education free? Did your social skills develop from a white culture where you were an insider? Did the quality and perception of your work depend on who liked you in any way? (I.E. have you ever worked with people?)

Yeah yeah, I've never oppressed anyone, that happened in the past, but don't mind me while I enjoy advantages conferred upon me by that past oppression.

What an idiotic argument.

Frankly, the fact that asshats in the past have engaged in discrimination is not my fault nor should it be my problem. KKK members have burned down black peoples' houses, but that doesn't give anyone the right to take my deck furniture as compensation.

If there is still discrimination and racism in society, we should take steps to eliminate it. But that's hard to do, so we've decided to enact policies that try to counter past discrimination with a new brand of discrimination. Figuring out how to fix broken inner city schools is perplexing, so we try and use affirmative action to give people who may not be the most qualified for a job a leg up in order to gloss over this past failure. Never mind that you're creating a new victim in that process.

I suppose if we reach a point where we're all subject to the same level of discrimination based on skin color, then we've achieved the goal of equality?

And that cartoon is shallow and stupid. The white dude in that cartoon did directly opress that black guy. There are laws to redress that. But affirmative action seeks to punish some random white dude for the actions that his ancestors may or may not have taken against some random black people in the past.

BUT YOU HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATED FOR. FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IN YOUR FAVOR. YOU HAVE BEEN THE RECIPIENT OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE. DID YOU REJECT THOSE ILL GOTTEN GAINS?

No, I really haven't. I challenge you to come up with a concrete example of how I have personally been discriminated for or been the recipient of advantages based on my race.

The lack of your direct action doesn't magically stop you from benefiting from white privilege. Are you white? Congratulations, you get to benefit from past oppression of non-whites to the benefit of white people in general.

As for the cartoon, replace the characters in the last panel with their children and you still get the same fucking message.

I think I have a problem with the kind of discrimination-at-every-level that people are talking about, insofar as it seems hard to measure and hard to identify in anything except obvious and egregious examples, or in vague, hand-wavy terms that point to little if anything in particular.

EDIT: Immigration and naturalization strikes me as one of those egregious and obvious examples of racism.

I think I have a problem with the kind of discrimination-at-every-level that people are talking about, insofar as it seems hard to measure and hard to identify in anything except obvious and egregious examples, or in vague, hand-wavy terms that point to little if anything in particular.

EDIT: Immigration and naturalization strikes me as one of those egregious and obvious examples of racism.

I think I have a problem with the kind of discrimination-at-every-level that people are talking about, insofar as it seems hard to measure and hard to identify in anything except obvious and egregious examples, or in vague, hand-wavy terms that point to little if anything in particular.

Its actually fairly easy to measure in aggregate. That is how we know it exists. The problem is that it is not easy to measure on an individual case.

I.E. We have a set of results we should see in aggregate if things are equal. But we do not see these results. Once we control for other factors we can see that the only reason that these results differ is that we must reject the idea that racism doesn't happen and that people are not recipients of it.

When looking at individual cases, the secondary factors too easily blend in (Oh, see i have good social skills [because people tend to like me more because I have white skin]) and are not seen. Thus each person individually can claim they were not the recipient of racism and actually believe it to be true. Because they, individually, never seeing the racism being enacted directly against them, or directly for them (I.E. they do not see the racism that keeps blacks down and so they don't connect that with it lifting them up) they can claim with clear conscience that they have not benefited.

Edit: For instance, we can see what kinds of loans people of different races are shuffled to and oh my goodness it seems that black people are shuffled to predatory loans in excess of whites when controlling for all factors that run into the fundamentals of the loan.

Have you gotten a loan? Yes? Well then you have been a direct beneficiary of racism.

The United States would not even exist, especially in it's current form, without 2 things: Manifest Destiny, and The African Slave Trade. These two things exploited the fuck out of every minority you can think of, especially the Native American populations that were here first, and the Black population, which was forcefully dragged from their homes in order to serve the white man. Society as we know it could not have been possible without minority exploitation, and we still have minority exploitation under the table in many instances, such as migrant workers from Mexico and the sex slave trade, which is mainly comprised of Asian ethnicities.

I think I have a problem with the kind of discrimination-at-every-level that people are talking about, insofar as it seems hard to measure and hard to identify in anything except obvious and egregious examples, or in vague, hand-wavy terms that point to little if anything in particular.

EDIT: Immigration and naturalization strikes me as one of those egregious and obvious examples of racism.

We can use average wealth as some sort of reasonable indicator.

You'll have to elaborate on that. I mean, I'm confident systemic discrimination exists, but I think it's far more obvious that past extremely egregious discrimination is the cause for the lion's share of inequality. Black people tend to be really poor because those are the kind of conditions society put them in after it got done enslaving them. Social mobility isn't all that great, so it's not like we can or should expect average black incomes to be very high.

So, again acknowledging that discrimination exists, how do we show that it's more a race thing and less a poverty trap thing?

I think I worded this poorly, but I hope my gist was intelligible.

Loren Michael on September 2010

0

JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod

Guys, I am all for helping Modern Man understand the concept of privilege, but I'm a little unclear as to what it has to do with The Strategic Incompetence of Democrats. This is the second on-topic warning I've had to make in the last ten pages. There won't be a third.

If some kind soul would like to move this discussion into its own thread, that would be keen.

So, again acknowledging that discrimination exists, how do we show that it's more a race thing and less a poverty trap thing?

Edit: For instance, we can see what kinds of loans people of different races are shuffled to and oh my goodness it seems that black people are shuffled to predatory loans in excess of whites when controlling for all factors that run into the fundamentals of the loan.

Have you gotten a loan? Yes? Well then you have been a direct beneficiary of racism.

We can look at promotion rates and control for things like education and intelligence... This is how we know that a glass ceiling has existed for women.

We can look at all sorts of various aggregate social phenomena. We can look at wages correcting for all those social phenomena. Should we just accept that black people and women are worse negotiators because they tend to get paid less to do the same job once you control for experience et al.?

You want a concrete examples, MM? How about the fact that you were able to become a naturalized citizen of the US?

Which had nothing to do with the color of my skin. It had to do with the fact that my dad had a specialized engineering skillset that meant he was attractive enough to an employer in Michigan that they were willing to pay to get a good visa for us.

Because the social contexts from which you have received those benefits are inseparable with discrimination which has the effect to elevate white people above others.

My social context is being raised by parents who placed a high value on education and accomplishment due to their desire to better their life over what they had in the old country.

Was your education free?

No, of course not. It was paid for by my parents and by way of loans. In that way, I was no different than my non-white classmates.

Did your social skills develop from a white culture where you were an insider?

An insider to what? My family were immigrants in both Canada and the US. Very few white people are New England bluebloods.

Did the quality and perception of your work depend on who liked you in any way? (I.E. have you ever worked with people?)

Sure. Like my non-white colleagues, I was promoted based on a combination of my work and my personal connections with supervisors.

If so, then you have been the beneficiary of discrimination.

Nope, you still haven't shown this.

You've listed a bunch of things (education, promotions at work etc.) that are available to people of all races. There isn't some special white person card that gets handed out and allows you to cruise through life. Unless you're born a Kennedy or Bush, you have to work for everything in life. No one gives you shit based on your race. Well, except jobs in the case of affirmative action.

I think I have a problem with the kind of discrimination-at-every-level that people are talking about, insofar as it seems hard to measure and hard to identify in anything except obvious and egregious examples, or in vague, hand-wavy terms that point to little if anything in particular.

Its actually fairly easy to measure in aggregate. That is how we know it exists. The problem is that it is not easy to measure on an individual case.

This is how I'm thinking of this. Thank you for putting it more concisely an intelligibly than me.

Edit: For instance, we can see what kinds of loans people of different races are shuffled to and oh my goodness it seems that black people are shuffled to predatory loans in excess of whites when controlling for all factors that run into the fundamentals of the loan.

Have you gotten a loan? Yes? Well then you have been a direct beneficiary of racism.

This seems like the problem you were just mentioning though, the problems of seeing it at an individual level. How do we know my specific loans were... this doesn't seem like the right term to use, "racist"?

Which had nothing to do with the color of my skin. It had to do with the fact that my dad had a specialized engineering skillset that meant he was attractive enough to an employer in Michigan that they were willing to pay to get a good visa for us.

Which would not have happened if you came from Africa or Mexico.

An insider to what? My family were immigrants in both Canada and the US. Very few white people are New England bluebloods.

White culture. White Culture is not New England Blueblood.

Sure. Like my non-white colleagues, I was promoted based on a combination of my work and my personal connections with supervisors.

All of which you earned legitimately and had nothing to do with the prejudices (known and unknown) of your supervisors and associates right?

This seems like the problem you were just mentioning though, the problems of seeing it at an individual level. How do we know my specific loans were... this doesn't seem like the right term to use, "racist"?

1) It is more or less a statistical certainty that this will happen at some point

2) Markets effect prices in such a way that if the effect was not widespread you could not find evidence of it(rather the "racist" data would end up as outliers).

3) Markets effect prices in such ways that even if you were not directly discriminated for, you would be a recipient of the general terms and moods which have been molded, by that racism, for your particular area.

In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him "Taliban Dan." But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: "Don’t pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ "

In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him "Taliban Dan." But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: "Don’t pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ "

The full quote:

Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.

Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.

Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.

No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.

Sometimes I'm actually a little bit glad my ancestors came to the new world in the early 1700s because I don't have to worry about whether or not me and mine somehow benefited from racism and intolerance. Yep. That was my people. I'm really very sorry about it; please let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve the quality of your schools.

But I can totally see how if you're a first generation American whose parents emigrated here from the Russia in the 1980s, you'd be a little perplexed about why you're supposed to have a share of the white man's burden.

It's not just paying for your ancestor's deeds though. What mask and others are trying to get across is the fact that just being white in this country conveys a lot of privileges and benefits that minorities aren't privy to. The fact that MM denies this doesn't mean these benefits are non-existent, simply that they're so utterly entrenched in the culture that they're nearly invisible, unless you've been denied them your entire life.

In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him "Taliban Dan." But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: "Don’t pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ "

Yeah, FactCheck is peddling bullshit there. While Webster seems to be saying that men should not force their wives into submission, its only because he believes they should do it themselves, hence his later comment that wives can "take" that verse as their own.

It's being so focused on the letter of the matter that the spirit is lost, combined with a bit of Beltway style vapors.

Guys, I am all for helping Modern Man understand the concept of privilege, but I'm a little unclear as to what it has to do with The Strategic Incompetence of Democrats. This is the second on-topic warning I've had to make in the last ten pages. There won't be a third.

If some kind soul would like to move this discussion into its own thread, that would be keen.

It's funny, because I was actually about to have a post that would sort of tie it back in

The interesting thing people will note in MM's posts is that he's conceptualizing affirmative action in the context of reward and punishment, as well as individual achievement/individual responsibility. Affirmative action punishes people who have worked hard to earn jobs, mortgages, whatever -- that doesn't seem moral. Why should someone be punished just for being white?

And then of course folded into that was sort of a denial that prejudice exists at all in American society today, and that's sort of tougher to deal with, but that's very common with conservative ideology. Conservative ideology fundamentally lacks a method of addressing subtle discrimination. Open, explicit discrimination they can wrap their heads around, but conservative ideology is built on a myth of individual achievement and responsibility. It's the whole premise upon which their reward/punishment system is built.

Remember my earlier post where I mentioned that their system of reward and punishment hinges on the idea that if you're moral and self-disciplined, you will succeed, and therefore success and failure are fairly-distributed marks of morality -- of your value as a human being. That whole concept is undermined by any notions that people get where they are by other means -- that broad social forces have anything to do with anything. The reason explicit discrimination is understandable as wrong to a conservative is because it's something that can be interpreted and understood within the framework of individual action and responsibility. Once you progress to things that can only be understood in aggregate (like, say, middle-class white norms of communication that most black children never get the chance to learn, and how those norms are privileged over other communication modes), it becomes repugnant to a conservative, because it undermines the very foundation of their reward/punishment system, which in turn is the thing that holds the moral fabric of the nation together.

What's happening right now, in this very thread, is a great example of how Democrats are ineffectual.

MM is approaching this entire topic from a framework that we don't get and in a language that we don't speak, but we're responding to him without providing a clear alternative framework.

Instead of saying it's not about reward and punishment at all, and making that incredibly clear, we're trying to work out an understanding of how, exactly, the calculus works: "yes, it sort of punishes white people but it's very mild and we kind of deserve it because blah blah blah."

That's why affirmative action doesn't exist anymore in nearly any public collegiate system in America, and continues to be removed by legislation (even as private companies and colleges, ironically, often choose to maintain these programs because they recognize the value in them)

Because we got trapped in his framework (even I did!) instead of saying -- it's not about punishing people, it's not about anyone's ancestors.

Some people in this country never get a fair shake. To this day, and indeed every single day in this country, people are getting screwed just because of being born the wrong color. That's wrong, and we, as people who don't have that burden, have a moral responsibility to help people who do shoulder that burden. And we can afford it.

But see how hard it is to step back and realize that that's the more compelling message? See how easy it is to get caught in someone else's conceptualization?

It's a difficult task, but it's something that candidates and strategists should be able to figure out, considering it is their job.

Guys, I am all for helping Modern Man understand the concept of privilege, but I'm a little unclear as to what it has to do with The Strategic Incompetence of Democrats.

The Democrats inability to control or provide an alternative narrative on affirmative action, racial discrimination, white privileged, etc that explains these things to the public is certainly part of their problem.

Blaming people like Modern Man for not getting it isn't really a viable political strategy, what you need to do is find a way to get through to at least some of them.

HamHamJ on September 2010

While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.

Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.

No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.

My 'should' there was an attempt to emphasize the subject of the phrase, i.e., that Webster thinks it's appropriate for women to do that rather than men. He did not, indeed, in that excerpt, say that wives should pray about that. However, given his other actions, it's pretty clear that he does think that way.

Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.

No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.

We are talking about an asshole who supports covenant marriage and forcing women to carry the child of their rapist.

Grayson didn't manipulate shit. Webster does think wives should submit their husbands; Factcheck's problem is that Webster said wives should pray about that passage, not husbands, which is an awfully petty distinction to make.

No, Webster said wives could pray about that passage, if they wanted to.

My 'should' there was an attempt to emphasize the subject of the phrase, i.e., that Webster thinks it's appropriate for women to do that rather than men. He did not, indeed, in that excerpt, say that wives should pray about that. However, given his other actions, it's pretty clear that he does think that way.

Some people in this country never get a fair shake. To this day, and indeed every single day in this country, people are getting screwed just because of being born the wrong color. That's wrong, and we, as people who don't have that burden, have a moral responsibility to help people who do shoulder that burden. And we can afford it.

In the context of affirmative action, how would you intend to sell this as being anything other than "Based on your skin color, we're going to put you and your kids at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into college and getting a job."

There isn't any way to do so. People aren't going to support an agenda that directly puts them and their families at a disadvantage. Especially in economically dicey times.

Which is why I think affirmative action is dying a slow but sure death in this country. There are very few politicians willing to stick their neck out for such a deeply unpopular policy.

Some people in this country never get a fair shake. To this day, and indeed every single day in this country, people are getting screwed just because of being born the wrong color. That's wrong, and we, as people who don't have that burden, have a moral responsibility to help people who do shoulder that burden. And we can afford it.

In the context of affirmative action, how would you intend to sell this as being anything other than "Based on your skin color, we're going to put you and your kids at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into college and getting a job."

There isn't any way to do so. People aren't going to support an agenda that directly puts them and their families at a disadvantage. Especially in economically dicey times.

Which is why I think affirmative action is dying a slow but sure death in this country. There are very few politicians willing to stick their neck out for such a deeply unpopular policy.

Should just eliminate the "What race are you" question. Just don't even ask it.

Guys, I am all for helping Modern Man understand the concept of privilege, but I'm a little unclear as to what it has to do with The Strategic Incompetence of Democrats. This is the second on-topic warning I've had to make in the last ten pages. There won't be a third.

If some kind soul would like to move this discussion into its own thread, that would be keen.

It's funny, because I was actually about to have a post that would sort of tie it back in

The interesting thing people will note in MM's posts is that he's conceptualizing affirmative action in the context of reward and punishment, as well as individual achievement/individual responsibility. Affirmative action punishes people who have worked hard to earn jobs, mortgages, whatever -- that doesn't seem moral. Why should someone be punished just for being white?

And then of course folded into that was sort of a denial that prejudice exists at all in American society today, and that's sort of tougher to deal with, but that's very common with conservative ideology. Conservative ideology fundamentally lacks a method of addressing subtle discrimination. Open, explicit discrimination they can wrap their heads around, but conservative ideology is built on a myth of individual achievement and responsibility. It's the whole premise upon which their reward/punishment system is built.

Remember my earlier post where I mentioned that their system of reward and punishment hinges on the idea that if you're moral and self-disciplined, you will succeed, and therefore success and failure are fairly-distributed marks of morality -- of your value as a human being. That whole concept is undermined by any notions that people get where they are by other means -- that broad social forces have anything to do with anything. The reason explicit discrimination is understandable as wrong to a conservative is because it's something that can be interpreted and understood within the framework of individual action and responsibility. Once you progress to things that can only be understood in aggregate (like, say, middle-class white norms of communication that most black children never get the chance to learn, and how those norms are privileged over other communication modes), it becomes repugnant to a conservative, because it undermines the very foundation of their reward/punishment system, which in turn is the thing that holds the moral fabric of the nation together.

What's happening right now, in this very thread, is a great example of how Democrats are ineffectual.

MM is approaching this entire topic from a framework that we don't get and in a language that we don't speak, but we're responding to him without providing a clear alternative framework.

Instead of saying it's not about reward and punishment at all, and making that incredibly clear, we're trying to work out an understanding of how, exactly, the calculus works: "yes, it sort of punishes white people but it's very mild and we kind of deserve it because blah blah blah."

That's why affirmative action doesn't exist anymore in nearly any public collegiate system in America, and continues to be removed by legislation (even as private companies and colleges, ironically, often choose to maintain these programs because they recognize the value in them)

Because we got trapped in his framework (even I did!) instead of saying -- it's not about punishing people, it's not about anyone's ancestors.

Some people in this country never get a fair shake. To this day, and indeed every single day in this country, people are getting screwed just because of being born the wrong color. That's wrong, and we, as people who don't have that burden, have a moral responsibility to help people who do shoulder that burden. And we can afford it.

But see how hard it is to step back and realize that that's the more compelling message? See how easy it is to get caught in someone else's conceptualization?

It's a difficult task, but it's something that candidates and strategists should be able to figure out, considering it is their job.

It's like I was saying before: The big issue is that the GOP has completely dominated the framing of the debate.

It's all about controlling the narrative. About the implicit assumptions made in people's world views. The Right has worked tirelessly for decades reshaping that and the Left has just ignored it.

The thing with AA is that it seems horribly unfair .... if you assume that everyone starts off equal and/or has an equal shot.

And THAT'S one of the Right's biggest victories. Probably their biggest. American Exceptionalism and the American Dream and all that. The idea so many people have that lack of success is 100% a personal failing. The environment has no effect on people's chance at success. It's the one big thing they stole from Ayn Rand and it's a fucking abomination.

And it ties into everything they believe. Low taxes for the Rich? Well, I'll be rich too some day. Cause I'll try hard enough and that's all it takes!

In the end, AA is simply the acknowledgment that who's vagina you shot out of is an incredibly important factor in your future success. And since the Right's frame of reference, that most of the US has adopted, doesn't acknowledge this fact, they don't like AA.

The Democrats need to work on reframing the debate. On attacking basic underlying concepts of the American world view that are wrong.

Some people in this country never get a fair shake. To this day, and indeed every single day in this country, people are getting screwed just because of being born the wrong color. That's wrong, and we, as people who don't have that burden, have a moral responsibility to help people who do shoulder that burden. And we can afford it.

In the context of affirmative action, how would you intend to sell this as being anything other than "Based on your skin color, we're going to put you and your kids at a disadvantage when it comes to getting into college and getting a job."

There isn't any way to do so. People aren't going to support an agenda that directly puts them and their families at a disadvantage. Especially in economically dicey times.

Which is why I think affirmative action is dying a slow but sure death in this country. There are very few politicians willing to stick their neck out for such a deeply unpopular policy.

Should just eliminate the "What race are you" question. Just don't even ask it.

Sociologists found in a study in Milwaukee that someone with an "ethnic sounding name" was extremely unlikely to receive a call back for interviews. If your name is Tyrone, it doesn't matter how qualified you are - best not look for work in Milwaukee.

The thing with AA is that it seems horribly unfair .... if you assume that everyone starts off equal and/or has an equal shot.

And THAT'S one of the Right's biggest victories. Probably their biggest. American Exceptionalism and the American Dream and all that. The idea so many people have that lack of success is 100% a personal failing. The environment has no effect on people's chance at success. It's the one big thing they stole from Ayn Rand and it's a fucking abomination.

And it ties into everything they believe. Low taxes for the Rich? Well, I'll be rich too some day. Cause I'll try hard enough and that's all it takes!

AA creates an injustice on an individual level to create a good on the societal level. It is a very inelegant solution to a real problem, and I'd be in completely in favor of axing it if another solution is found

In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him "Taliban Dan." But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: "Don’t pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ "

Yeah, FactCheck is peddling bullshit there. While Webster seems to be saying that men should not force their wives into submission, its only because he believes they should do it themselves, hence his later comment that wives can "take" that verse as their own.

It's being so focused on the letter of the matter that the spirit is lost, combined with a bit of Beltway style vapors.

I'm not a fan of Dan Webster or his ideas, but honestly, after watching both the ad and the original speech, Grayson manipulated what the man was saying. All of the other stuff was fine (Even though mudslinging, from anybody, is bad form), but that was blatantly out of context and manipulative on Grayson's part.

Webster: So, write a journal. Second, find a verse. I have a verse for my wife, I have verses for my wife. Don’t pick the ones that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ That’s in the Bible, but pick the ones that you’re supposed to do. So instead, ‘love your wife, even as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it’ as opposed to ‘wives submit to your own husbands.’ She can pray that, if she wants to, but don’t you pray it.

Someone's owed an apology, I think.

Beyond somewhat exaggerating his opponent's stance, I don't really see the problem, especially in context with other shit he's on record supporting.

Grayson doesn't need to apologize, he needs to keep hammering this guy until election day.